Monthly Archives: June 2018

Not To Be Your Enemy

Saint Francis said “No man is to be your enemy.”

One of the biggest concerns and pitfalls of the new century is dehumanizing those who view things differently and who’s opinions differ from our own. In the last 20 years this seems to have particularly been accentuated.  Anglican Archbishop Desmond Tutu notes:

“When we see others as the enemy, we risk becoming what we hate. When we oppress others, we end up oppressing ourselves. All of our humanity is dependent upon recognizing the humanity in others.”
― Desmond Tutu, Anglican clergy & leader

Tutu was working and operating in Apartheid South Africa, and took that activism to change a social and political climate. The difficulty of dehumanizing others stalls progress and continues to build walls between us.  At it’s best the church is to be the conscience of a society.

John Henry Newman, 19th century Anglican and Catholic scholar, noted the need for the church, and her clergy to give voice, addressing the political arena whenever necessary:

“Above all, clergymen are bound to form and pronounce an opinion. It is sometimes said, in familiar language, that a clergyman should have nothing to do with politics. This is true, if it be meant that he should not aim at secular objects, should not side with a political party as such, should not be ambitious of popular applause, or the favour of great men, should not take pleasure and lose time in business of this world, should not be covetous. But if it means that he should not express an opinion and exert an influence one way rather than another, it is plainly unscriptural.”
― John Henry Newman, Parochial and Plain Sermons 

While remaining true to scripture and conscience, we should always seek to better and enrich society whenever possible. Francis said “While you are walking somewhere to preach, be sure that your walking is your preaching.” We must always strive to treat others with differing opinions, not as enemies, not dehumanizing them, not over-politically, but retaining the truth that each person is the image of God, and a child deeply loved.

Amending My Political Dogma

I once received criticism for leading prayers of the people, specifically praying for refugees and exhorting parishioners to “Treat the refugees among you kindly…” A good and well-meaning person later said “We really shouldn’t pray political things during prayers.” I disagreed with him gently, told him that I was not praying politics at all but rather I was praying scripture, particularly Leviticus 19:34

The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

I also said that I felt responsible to teach people to pray according to biblical example, that instead of amending scripture to our politics or opinions, we must amend our life and prayers as we are informed by scriptural example and deed, whenever possible.

Historically, at it’s worst the church has been complicit with the mistakes and abuses of the state. At it’s best the church often functions as the conscience of the state. When the church functions as it should then slavery ends, apartheid ends, people are treated with dignity and respect as an image-bearer of their Heavenly Father.

We face real issues, there are real problems to solve, but we must consider what kind of world we wish to live in and treat others accordingly…the whole “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” thing.

Wilberforce, MLK, Desmond Tutu & many others, with or without famous names, have proven time and again the powerful need for the church to promote the good conscience of a nation. Often that is to uphold the law and to be good citizens, and sometimes that is to oppose laws that are out of date or are just plain wrong. We should continue to be the vioce of good conscience, It’s important and it will determine what kind of world we live in.

Harrowing Hell: Part 3- Gustaf Aulen and Christus Victor

Gustav Aulen, in chapter 3 of his book, Christus Victor, notes that though the early fathers had some divergent views, Irenaeus, Origen, Athanasius, the Cappadocian fathers, and Augustine all agree on this classical understanding of the atonement: that Christ, having died and descended into hell, overthrew the powers of darkness and broke the power of death, being raised again victorious. (Aulén, 37-39). Gustav Aulen notes that Augustine taught how:

…the race of men is delivered into the power of the devil on account of its sin; guilt rests on the whole race. Yet God does not cease to love mankind, and the incarnation is proof of the greatness of His love…the coming of His Son… is proof of the greatness of His love…the coming of His Son into fellowship with us, to take upon himself our sufferings and the evil which rests upon us. Thereby we are saved, justified by His blood, reconciled to God through the death of His Son, delivered from the wrath…” (45).

Elsewhere Aulen references Augustine, who explains,

The devil found Christ innocent, but none the less smote Him; he shed innocent blood, and took what he had no right to take. Therefore it is fitting he be dethroned and forced to give up those who were under his power (51).

After 1600 years, this understanding of the work of Christ, and the harrowing of hell, began to fall out of favor during the Enlightenment; however, in the 20th century, theologians like Bishop Gustaf Aulen began to rediscover this ancient understanding of the triumphant and victorious work of Christ in the harrowing of hell. Aulen writes: “Evil ultimately overreaches itself when it comes into conflict with the power of good, with God Himself. It loses the battle at the moment it seems to be victorious” (55). Basically, if a payment for sin was required- God also paid it in full through Christ. He overcomes not by Almighty fiat, but by putting His own skin into the game.

My understanding of the work of Christ has grown and developed greatly since encountering the concept of the harrowing of hell and Christ’s victory over death and the grave. Jesus was not an unknowing victim but a purposeful savior. He did not just rest or sleep while in the grave, it seems that, in combination with his crucifixion on the cross that this harrowing of hell in between Good Friday and Resurrection Sunday accentuates Christ’s complete and total victory as well as His ultimate sovereignty in all things.

Harrowing Hell part 2:

John Chrysostom, in his Easter homily of 400 a.d. quotes Isaiah  “You, O Hell, have been troubled by encountering Him below” (Chrysostom) and Melito of Sardis, in the 2nd century celebrated Christ’s resurrection with these words:

Who is my opponent? I, he says, am the Christ. I am the one who destroyed death, and triumphed over the enemy, and trampled Hades under foot, and bound the strong one, and carried off man to the heights of heaven, I, he says, am the Christ (On the Passover, part 102).

One clarification we must make in our understanding of the language is that hell may not have meant the lake of fire that many of us think of today. The Greek word Hades, and the Hebrew word Sheol referred to the place of the dead. Later wordings of the creed reflect this by saying “Christ descended to the dead” (A Christian Presence in Every Community). However, that is not to say that Christ descended into some limbo of nothingness.  The catechism of the Catholic Church states that

“Jesus did not descend into hell to deliver the damned, nor to destroy the hell of damnation, but to free the just who had gone before him” (Catechism, 180).

McGrath, writing on “the harrowing of hell” states “According to this, after dying on the cross, Christ descended to hell, and broke down its gates in order that the imprisoned souls might go free” (McGrath, 335). So, the idea of the Harrowing of Hell is more complex than one may initially think it is.